Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 506 (PNJ)

Vijayinder v. Punjab Public Service Commission

2011-02-09

PERMOD KOHLI

body2011
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") issued Prospectus for holding the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009. As many as, 143 vacancies of Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services were notified. By virtue of an addendum, 37 posts of Excise and Taxation Officers were also brought within the purview of competitive examination, making the total posts 180. Besides the number of vacancies for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services, Prospectus also prescribed the qualifications and the details of the examination, including the prescription of minimum marks etc. The test was to be conducted in two successive stages - (1) Preliminary Competitive Examination and (2) Main Competitive Examination (written and viva-voce). Prospectus further provided the eligibility of candidates for main competitive examination, after holding the preliminary competitive examination under" the caption of "Overview of the Examination". The relevant extract necessary for the purpose of the present writ petition is reproduced here under :- "Overview of the Examination :- 1. Candidates equal to thirteen times of the total vacancies determined by the Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13-A shall qualify for the main competitive examination. xxxxxxxxx (4) No candidate shall be eligible to appear in the Main Competitive Examination unless he obtains 45 per cent marks in aggregate of the two papers with minimum 40 per cent marks in each subject. (5) The marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates who are declared qualified for admission to the main Competitive Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit by the Commission." 2 The preliminary examination was to consist of two papers - Paper-I General Studies-150 marks and Paper-ll, one subject to be selected from the list of optional subjects (300 marks). Thus total marks for Preliminary Examination were fIxed at 450. It is stated that as many as 29000 candidates submitted their applications and after scrutiny, approximately, 23500 candidates were issued roll numbers for appearance in the Preliminary Examination held on 9.12.2010. Result of the Preliminary Examination was declared by the Commission on 30.12.2010. As many as 2212 candidates in the General and Reserve Categories have been short-listed for main written examination. Petitioners were declared unsuccessful for appearance in the main examination.The petitioners have downloaded their marks from the Official Website of the Commission. Result of the Preliminary Examination was declared by the Commission on 30.12.2010. As many as 2212 candidates in the General and Reserve Categories have been short-listed for main written examination. Petitioners were declared unsuccessful for appearance in the main examination.The petitioners have downloaded their marks from the Official Website of the Commission. It is alleged that all the petitioners have secured more than 45% marks in aggregate of the two papers and 40% minimum marks in each subject. The contention of the petitioners is that they have acquired eligibility by securing more than 45% marks in aggregate and 40% in each subject, in terms of the Prospectus issued by the Commission and thus are entitled to apply and appear for main written examination. Forms for the main written examination have to be filled up by 15.2.2011. Since the petitioners have not been included in the list of successful candidates, they are not entitled to apply for main examination. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus to permit them to appear in the Main written examination for recruitment to Punjab State Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and further writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the condition in the Prospectus issued by the Commission, which, inter alia, provides that candidates equal to 13 times of the total vacancies determined by the Government shall qualify for the main competitive examination, 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the condition prescribing eligibility for main competitive examination equal to 13 times the number of total vacancies is irrational, unconstitutional and violative of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. In support of the contentions, the petitioners have referred to the advertisement issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Union Public Service Commission for administrative services where the larger nimiber of candidates have been allowed to appear for the main examination. In Jammu and Kashmir, 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who have appeared or 25 times the approximate number of vacancies, which ever may be higher/are declared to be eligible for main examination. In Jammu and Kashmir, 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who have appeared or 25 times the approximate number of vacancies, which ever may be higher/are declared to be eligible for main examination. In Himachal Pradesh in relation to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary Examination) 2009 the number of candidates short listed on the basis of the Preliminary Examination to be called for the Main Written Examination was 20 times of the total number of vacancies and the same criteria has been fixed by the Union Public Service Commission for the Central Civil Services Examination. 5. The other contention of the petitioners is that Clauses (1) and (4) of the Prospectus under the caption "Overview of the Examination" are self contradictory and mutually exclusive. Mr. Dhindsa, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in terms of Clause (4), every candidate who secures minimum 45% marks in aggregate and 40% marks in each subject is eligible to appear in the main examination whereas Clause (1) prescribes candidates equal to 13 times of the total-vacancies shall qualify for the main competitive examination which is totally irrelevant and illogical as the same tends to take away the right conferred upon a candidate under Clause (4). From the Prospectus, it appears that the Scheme of Competitive Examination for Punjab State Civil Services Combined Examination is to ensure that best suitable and meritorious candidate is selected for the administrative service of the State, which is otherwise the backbone of the administration in every government. The quantum of scrutiny is stringent and highly competitive. Preliminary Competitive Examination is in fact a shortlisting process where a large number of candidates apply and it becomes practically difficult to permit every candidate to appear in the main competitive examination, The object of the short-listing is also to ensure that the best lot is selected for such premium service in the State. The contention of the petitioner that Clauses (1) and (4) are self contradictory and mutually exclusive is without any substance. Clause (4) prescribes minimum 45% marks in aggregate and 40% marks iii each subject which is the minimum eligibility criteria for main entrance examination whereas in terms of Clause (1), 13 times equal to the number of vacancies is the yardstick for shortlisting the candidates for the rhain entrance examination. There does not seem to be any conflict between the two Clauses. There does not seem to be any conflict between the two Clauses. Clause (4) prescribes the minimum eligibility whereas Clause (1) prescribes the shortlisting criteria i.e. zone of consideration. Minimum eligibility and zone of consideration are two different spheres. Every eligible candidate may not be within zone of consideration. Thus Clause (4) is in fact intendum with Clause (1) and is not in contradiction. Shortlisting of the candidates for any examination is recognized and established mode. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, 1996(6) Supreme Court Cases 293 has observed as under :- "6. The question which is to be answered is as to whether in the process of short-listing, the Commission has altered or substituted the criteria or the eligibility of a candidate to be considered for being appointed against the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court. It may be mentioned at the outset that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and-criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission . has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates fi-om amongst, the applicants." 6. The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated by Honble Supreme Court in the case of B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi vs. Union of India and others, 2008(1) Supreme Court Cases 262 wherein it has been observed as under :- "15. It is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted by the Selection Body vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, 1994(6) SCC 293 (videparas 6,8,9 and 13), Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar and another, 1993(2) S. C. T. 432 : 1993(2) sec 310, etc. 16. Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a shortlisting procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. For example, if for one or two posts there are more than 1000 applications received firom eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. For example, if for one or two posts there are more than 1000 applications received firom eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of short-listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is no mention of short- listing in the rules or in the advertisement." From the aforesaid observations of Honble Supreme Court, inevitable conclusion that can be drawn in that the selection authority is entitled to adopt short-listing criteria to search and select the best amongst the applicants. However, the criteria adopted should be reasonable, fair and rationale. As noticed above, the criteria adopted by the respondents is just and reasonable. 7. Another important aspect in the present case is that the petitioners have participated in the selection process without any reservation even when the criteria for selection was known to them having been notified in the Prospectus itself. Clauses (1) and (4) of the Prospectus clearly prescribes the criteria for selection. The petitioners have thus acquiesced and have rendered themselves disentitled to challenge the criteria. Honble Surpeme Court in the case of Chandra Parkash Tiwari and others vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others, 2002(6) SCC 127, it has been held as under :- "32. In conclusion, this Court recorded that the issue of estoppel by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and it is on that score a further question arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status the situation, however, presently does not warrant such a conclusion and we are thus not in a position to lend concurrence to the contention of Dr. Dhawan pertaining the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. Dhawan pertaining the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Parkash Shukla (Om Parkash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.), a three-Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise." 8. The aforesaid observations have been reiterated by the Honble Supreme in the case of Union of India and others vs. S. Vinod Kumar and Ors., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 5. In view of the above legal position, the challengeto the selection is not sustainable. 9. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed